# Thread: Can God's Angels in Heaven be trusted?

1. Originally Posted by David M
Hello Richard

Good morning David,

Your assertion that I formed my "own paradox/contradiction based on the fact that I think God’s Angels can sin" is entirely false and illogical, and shows yet again that you do not understand the most basic elements of logic and language. I was not the one who formed the paradox. I merely refined the paradox that you yourself stated in your OP of the God's will is done in heaven thread because your formulation was not sufficiently lucid to work with. Here is what you wrote:
David: What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven. This paradox must be resolved.
This is the basis of your entire argument. Nothing could be more absurd than to say that I am the one who formed it because I "think that God's Angels can sin." That is false on both counts. First, I didn't form it, and second, the reason you formed the paradox was to logically prove that God's Angels cannot sin!

It is clear that you do not understand the most basic elements of logic or language. A paradox is defined as follows:
There would be a paradox if P and Not P
This has nothing to do with any personal belief about the truth of either P or Not P. All I did was refine your paradox so that it would be sufficiently lucid for our discussion. Specifically, I wrote:
Define P = God's Will is done in Heaven
Define Q = Angels in heaven sin
It would be a paradox if P and Q
My statement of the paradox is a perfect and precise formulation of the paradox you stated in your OP. Your assertion that I "reworded the paradox to support my own opinion" is absurd in the extreme. My formulation of the paradox does not presume the truth of either P or Q. I explained this by using a value of P that you could easily accept:
Let P = "All dogs are mammals." Then Not P = "Not all dogs are mammals."
One must be true. One must be false. This is the Law of Non-Contradiction.
You responded by saying:
You have used “P” above to be a proposition and I have no reason to disagree with “P” as a proposition and also NOT P as the NOT version of the same proposition. I am disagreeing to the use of “P” to represent a paradox, especially in the way you have worded your contradiction (not a paradox). It is not a paradox as I see it, but a direct contradiction. I disagree to the wording of the paradox you say is mine and the paradox that is yours.
Your answer contains much confusion. First, you say you are "disagreeing to the use of “P” to represent a paradox." That makes no sense at all. Paradoxes are stated with propositions like P. Second, you assert that there is a "contradiction" as opposed to a "paradox" when in fact the words are synonyms and you yourself used them as synonyms in your OP. Finally, you assert that you disagree with the "wording of the paradox" when in fact the wording of the paradox is perfect and precise.

If you can't see and understand this simple, basic, elementary logic then I don't see how the conversation could continue. It would be like trying to discuss calculus with someone who cannot add 1 + 2 to get 3.

Originally Posted by David M
Originally Posted by RAM
This is easy to see. Let X = "heaven" and let Y = "heaven and earth":
• David: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in location X and yet beings in location X sin.
• Richard: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in location Y and yet beings in location Y sin.

See that? I simply replaced X with Y. This proves that the two statements are formally identical. Exactly the same logic applies to both. If one is a paradox, so is the other. This paradox has been recognized for many centuries by Christians who have tried to solve it.
I do not care that Christians have argued over this for many centuries; mainstream Christendom has introduced many false doctrines. I do not need to prove them false here, I have given my reasons in lots of other posts for stating that opinion. If you want to reason along the same lines as mainstream Christendom, then I understand why you are doing so. I ask you once again to exclude Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 where “angels” means “minsters” or “priests” and quote a verse that directly says; God’s Angels (in Heaven or on earth) sin and I will respond to your evidence.
Again, your comment is confused. I said that Christians have been trying to solve the same kind of contradiction that you are trying to solve. This has nothing to do with any "false doctrines" that may have been introduced by people who came to one or another solution. I was not asking you to "prove them false" as should be obvious since I did not even state what solutions they came to. I was not "reasoning along the same lines as mainstream Christendom" - on the contrary, I merely showed that Christians have long been trying to solve the kind of paradox that you say implies angels cannot sin.

Originally Posted by David M
For reasons given, I rejected the following reply:

Originally Posted by RAM
Could you please tell me which of these two propositions you agree with?
P: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.
Not P: There is NOT a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.
By the Law of the Excluded Middle (also known as the Law of Non-Contradiction), you must agree with one of those propositions, P or Not P.

The Law simply states that for any proposition P, either that proposition is true, or its negation Not P is true.
A paradox only has an apparent contradiction, and when the words forming the paradox are properly explained, the apparent contradiction is removed. What you are proposing is a contradiction which is not a paradox and is done so to combat the paradox I have explained away.

I do not have to agree to any one of your statements above, because your use of the word “angels” (which need not have been used) is to avoid the truth and stick you your conclusion that God's Angels could have sinned.
OK - so you are doubling down on your rejection of the Law of Non-Contradiction, which is one of the three fundamental laws of logic. You have placed yourself outside the rules of rational discourse. There is no way anyone can reason with you if you reject logic itself.

Your assertion that the word angels "need not have been used" is totally insane. Your entire argument is that "angels cannot sin." Obviously, the word must be used to form your argument!

Originally Posted by David M
I can see why you are forcing me to accept the wording of your statement. By doing so, in my view, you are introducing a direct contradiction under the pretense of a paradox.

Originally Posted by David M
This is the end of this discussion between us unless you produce more evidence from the Bible which suggest God’s Angels sin. If anyone else wants to enter into this dialogue or will just give their opinion of the paradoxes presented, I will continue to add my comments accordingly, but if no-one will do this, then I am definitely finished giving explanations to you in this thread. You may have the last word by which to maintain your superiority of intellect and understanding of logic, but as for the evidence you have presented here, that is not shown. I trust others will see through your method of debate and your erroneous reasoning.

All the best
David
This is the end of the conversation because you do not understand the most basic and fundamental elements of logic or language no matter how clearly it is explained to you. You reject the Law of Non-Contradiction! You deny that the words "contradiction" and "paradox" are synonyms, even though you used them as synonyms in your OP. Etc.

I do wish you all the best,

Richard

2. Senior Member
Join Date
Jan 2012
Posts
2,564
Hello Richard

For the sake of unity I am going to call and end to this discussion; not the thread if anyone would like to respond. I cannot say anymore than I have said in my last reply. You are repeating what you have written before, and so I am not replying to what has been said before.

I will accept I am wrong if someone else can explain to me and show me where I am going wrong. I might accept another explanation when presented differently.

If this thread is to continue, I hope that someone else will give their opinion on what each of us has written and can give their own written version of the paradox and their explanation to resolve it or uphold it.

Maybe someone else will bring up more paradoxes in the Bible during the coming year and we can approach them in the way you have proposed in your New Year Greeting.

All the best for 2013

David

3. Originally Posted by David M
Hello Richard

For the sake of unity I am going to call and end to this discussion; not the thread if anyone would like to respond. I cannot say anymore than I have said in my last reply. You are repeating what you have written before, and so I am not replying to what has been said before.

I will accept I am wrong if someone else can explain to me and show me where I am going wrong. I might accept another explanation when presented differently.

If this thread is to continue, I hope that someone else will give their opinion on what each of us has written and can give their own written version of the paradox and their explanation to resolve it or uphold it.

Maybe someone else will bring up more paradoxes in the Bible during the coming year and we can approach them in the way you have proposed in your New Year Greeting.

All the best for 2013

David
Good morning David,

I don't understand why you would want someone else to show you that you have erred. You should be able to see it yourself. Your error is based on a fundamental failure to understand how to state a logical paradox. I have explained it many times in minute detail, and you have never responded accurately to the facts. Indeed, you have totally ignored some of my most explicit, lucid, incontrovertible examples stated with perfect precision. The problem is that you admit the standard structure of a logical paradox but then you deny you own words for the special case of the paradox under discussion. Specifically, I explained the nature of the Law of Non-Contradiction as follows:
Let P = "All dogs are mammals." Then Not P = "Not all dogs are mammals."
One must be true. One must be false. This is the Law of Non-Contradiction.
You agreed with this logic, but then responded by saying:
You have used “P” above to be a proposition and I have no reason to disagree with “P” as a proposition and also NOT P as the NOT version of the same proposition. I am disagreeing to the use of “P” to represent a paradox, especially in the way you have worded your contradiction (not a paradox). It is not a paradox as I see it, but a direct contradiction. I disagree to the wording of the paradox you say is mine and the paradox that is yours.
Your response makes no sense. You say you have no problem with that particular "P" and "Not P" but you disagree for other values of P, such as P = "Angels can sin." But that's irrational because logic is valid for all values of P! Don't you understand this point? Why don't you engage in authentic rational discourse of logic so that we can settle this? In my view, we are disputing something as simple and obvious as 1 + 2 = 3, and you are insisting that 1 + 2 = 17. If we cannot settle something as fundamental as this, how could we trust any of our conclusions?

Here's the key. Suppose Q implies Not P. The standard form of a paradox is this:
It would be a paradox if P and Q
Now you accept this for the example with dogs:
Define P = All dogs are mammals.
Define Q = Not all dogs are mammals.
It would be a paradox if P and Q
Or spelling it out:
It would be a paradox IF all dogs are mammals AND YET not all dogs are mammals.
Define P = God's Will is done in Heaven
Define Q = Angels in heaven sin
It would be a paradox if P and Q
OK - I've explained this every way possible. If you don't get it and you can't engage the explanations I have given with clarity and logic, then there is nothing more to say.

So, let's try a different angle. There never was any need for you to state your argument in the form of a paradox in the first place. You could just as well have stated it directly as a standard IF P THEN Q implication as follows:
Define P = God's Will is done in Heaven
Define Q = Angels in heaven sin
IF P THEN NOT Q
Or spelled out:
IF God's will is done in heaven, THEN angels in heaven cannot sin.
So now your job is to justify this implication, to prove that it is true. I hope this "fresh start" will help us make progress.

Happy New Year!

Richard

4. Senior Member
Join Date
Jan 2012
Posts
2,564
Hello Richard
In making this fresh start as you mention in closing above, here is the paragraph I wrote in the thread; Does it make a difference who the next Pedophile Protecting Pope will be? post #43.
I am all for making a fresh start though I have reservations we shall not get very far.

If we start with what you have spelled out; "God's will is done in heaven, THEN angels in heaven cannot sin" this is what I have been claiming and there is nothing I have to produce to show that the statement is not true. The statments which I have already quoted are when Jesus says; "Thy will be done on earth as it is (done) in Heaven" Then we have in Hebrews the statement concerning Angels; Are they not all ministering spirits, The word "all" implies no exceptions. Angels simply do as God instructs them. We do not have any records of sinning in Heaven where it cleary refers to God's Angels in Heaven and cannot possibly apply to anyone else or in fact of God's Angels sinning on earth. God's Angels do not sin; "period".

If you want to provide the evidence that God's Angels in Heaven can sin, then you have to show where it clearly states that, and where there is no abmiguity. If as I suspect, you quote Jude or Peter where it says; "the angels that sinned"; the word angel is not clearly God's Angels in Heaven. The word angels is ambiguous in this case and we have a dispute between whether the angels are human or are God's Angels. It is the introduction of this statement; "the angels that sinned" which gives rise to a paradox but only when "angels" is taken to mean "Angels (God's) which is not the case. Take away Jude/Peter either as an ambiguity or agreed that angels in this case are human and we do not have a paradox. I explained all this and I should not have to be doing it all over again.

If you wan to introduce the "sons of God" as God's Angels then equally the phrase "sons of God" can apply to humans. Since the phrase has more than one application, this means there is ambiguity and therefore we cannot use this.

If you use Revelation 12:7 we have an equally ambiguous situation because we are introduced to the Dragon, who we are told is; "that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan" It is not clear that any of these terms apply to one of God's Angels. We are not certain in this case that the heaven spoken of is the Heaven that is God's dwelling place and the "heaven" as we have agreed elsewhere can mean the "political heavens".

I now pass this over to you to bring to the table a clear unambiguous example which tells us that God's Angels can sin or have sinned.

David
You did not comment on this paragraph in the other thread, so now you have the opportunity to reply here.

Also, since you did not comment on the previous paragraph inthat thread so here it is for your to comment on and indicate whether you agree with what I am trying to explain.
Consider this statement; "All dogs are mammals" We agree this is the correct statment compared to; "Not all dogs are mammals" It is a given fact that we know all dogs are mammals (unless by dog you mean something else and then you would be ambiguous).

Now consider this; "all cucumbers eat people" I think we both agree that no cucumbers eat people. Saying; "Not all cucumbers eat people" infers that some do and that is as we know an impossibility. No cucumbers eat people. In the same way that it is impossible for cucumbers to eat people, so it is impossible for Angels to sin.
All the best

David
Last edited by David M; 03-25-2013 at 04:56 AM.

5. Senior Member
Join Date
Jan 2012
Posts
2,564
While Richard decides whether he is going to "start afresh" (as he has offered), I will make another point.

Consider the word "All". This means no exclusions. We can use this word in the logical expressions "P" or "NOT P" which Richard has introduced into this discussion.

Applying the law of non-contradiction which Richard has introduced, we have two statements of which only one statement can be true.

The first statement is simply; "All", and the second statement is simply the opposite "NOT All". One of these statements according to the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle has to be true and so one statement has to be false (not true).

Is there anything which can be said in which "All" is true or " Not All" is true?

Richard gave the example;
Let P = "All dogs are mammals." Then Not P = "Not all dogs are mammals." .
and so you can easily decide which or those statments is true

Let's apply the same application of "All" and "NOT All" with the word "sinned"

Which of the two following statements is true; 1. "All have sinned" 2. "NOT All have sinned"?

The Apostle Paul writes; (Romans 3:23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Is this a true statement or has Paul introduced a Bible self-contradiction (a paradox)? Would we say Paul is a liar for saying "all have sinned" or do we have to take this in context?

John writes; (1 John 1:8) If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us..
Whether we admit it or not we have sinned and we can regard ourselves within the group "All".

Paul can be accused of lying unless we make allowance for the exception which is Jesus and Jesus is not included in the "All".

It is also John who confirms that there is no sin in Jesus; (1 John3:5) And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him (Jesus) is no sin.

For Paul to be exact, we say he should have written (for us) "all, with the exception of Jesus, have sinned". As it is; "NOT All have sinned" is the true statment.

This goes to show the way we have to understand the context in which things have been said.

Now consider what Richard has been saying to me;

P: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.
Not P: There is NOT a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.
Richard is asking me to decide which of these two statements is true (which means one statement has to be false). From when Richard introduced the phrase; "yet angels could sin" I have disagreed with him. My only mistake at the first was to concentrate on the first word of the phrase; "yet", when subsequently I have always objected to the whole phrase which follows the word. I refuse to agree with Richard's line of reasoning and logic by his use of this phrase. Richard accuses me of replying in "Gibberish" and in the context of applying logical expressions and the use of Richard's phrase, I accuse Richard of "twisting words" and introducing man-made ideas.

The only way I can agree with Richard is if we agree the definition of the word "angels". In the context of "angels" being human, I can agree with Richard's statement, but because I know Richard understands "angels" in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 to be "God's Angels", this is why I understand his phrase to mean; "yet God's Angels can sin" and this I do not accept. I am not going to be drawn into agreeing a logical expression in which there is ambiguity. I have replied to Richard even quoting Wikipedia on this very point of problems with logical expressions;I would like someone who is reading this thread (besides Richard) to add their comment and add anything which will help Richard and me reslove the impasse we have.

David
Last edited by David M; 03-26-2013 at 05:43 AM.

6. Senior Member
Join Date
Jan 2012
Posts
2,564

I do not expect this thread to continue. I have this minute replied to Richard and L67 with the post copied below from another thread entitled; O. A. C. ...____...A. C. A. C.. The following post explains the situation we have got to and the claims made against me which I consider I am now vindicated.

I do not expect you to have read all the posts in this thread before reading this. The replies from Richard have tested my patinence and the posts get boring and make for tediuos reading. Here is my post in the thread where the discussion did not belong. Richard often introduces distraction and moves away from the topic of the thread under discussion. You will find the same accusations from Richard towards me plastered throughout many threads. Be warned, it happens to most contributors at some time.

This is to reply to both L67 and Richard

L67. You have just said;

David I have watched this argument go on for months and can't believe you can't grasp the situation. YOU absolutely did state the paradox Richards formulation of the paradox reads the same way your does. You are flat out WRONG. Just admit your error and move on.
Please show me the words I used, which Richard has put into my mouth. I used the word "paradox", because of the words we find in the Bible which are on the face of it, a self-contradiction.

My opening words are;
This post is to explain that God's Angels cannot sin and a paradox must be resolved.

I am glad you have nailed your colors to Richard's mast. Our friend Timmy has nailed you both in a recent reply in which he addresses both of you and I am on Timmy's side.

Richard.
In support of L67, thinking he is supoporting you, you have hit the proverbial nail of the head.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
It is true that you did not STATE your paradox succinctly, accurately, and explicitly as I did in my formulation of it.
The paradox comes from the words in the Bible (not my words). Jesus said;Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven" 2 Peter 2:4 speaking of the same event as Jude in which the word "angels" is used; the angels that sinned

You have said Richard; ".... in my formulation of it" That is what I have objected to from the beginning. I have given my reasons once again in the "fresh start" you offered we should take and yet you will not go there to continue the discussion. If you had, I would not have had the opportunity here of exposing both you and L67 at the same time.

I have answered and explained again in the "fresh start", and I can do no better. Accept my reasons or not, but what you have done here is a travesty of the truth and you have put words in my mouth. You are the person, despite all your protestations to the contrary, is the person who is adding to and taking away from the word of God, and you are doing the same to me. I have nothing to be remorseful of and I consider you need to be repentent.

I am tired of your badgering and belittling remarks and find your insults towards me in pervious posts objectionable. I wish I did not have to speak so bluntly, but what you and L67 have accused me of, has exposed both of you.

All this started after Richard said in his opening reply to my starting the thread; Can God's Angels be trusted?;
Hey there David,

I like the way you framed this discussion. A nice, clearly stated "paradox." That should make for some good progress.

Personally, I don't see any paradox
and then after many posts, Richard went on to formulate the paradox and say the formulation was the same as mine and then insert that formulation into a logical expression in which I could not agree to the sentence he used and continues to use. I have given my reasons and explanations for not accepting his sentence. Here is the link to posts #74 and #75).

David

David
Last edited by David M; 03-26-2013 at 05:33 AM.

7. Originally Posted by David M
While Richard decides whether he is going to "start afresh" (as he has offered), I will make another point.

Consider the word "All". This means no exclusions. We can use this word in the logical expressions "P" or "NOT P" which Richard has introduced into this discussion.

Applying the law of non-contradiction which Richard has introduced, we have two statements of which only one statement can be true.

The first statement is simply; "All", and the second statement is simply the opposite "NOT All". One of these statements according to the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle has to be true and so one statement has to be false (not true).

Is there anything which can be said in which "All" is true or " Not All" is true?

Richard gave the example; and so you can easily decide which or those statments is true

Let P = "All dogs are mammals." Then Not P = "Not all dogs are mammals." .
Let's apply the same application of "All" and "NOT All" with the word "sinned"

Which of the two following statements is true; 1. "All have sinned" 2. "NOT All have sinned"?

The Apostle Paul writes; (Romans 3:23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Is this a true statement or has Paul introduced a Bible self-contradiction (a paradox)? Would we say Paul is a liar for saying "all have sinned" or do we have to take this in context?

John writes; (1 John 1:8) If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us..
Whether we admit it or not we have sinned and we can regard ourselves within the group "All".

Paul can be accused of lying unless we make allowance for the exception which is Jesus and Jesus is not included in the "All".

It is also John who confirms that there is no sin in Jesus; (1 John3:5) And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him (Jesus) is no sin.

For Paul to be exact, we say he should have written (for us) "all, with the exception of Jesus, have sinned". As it is; "NOT All have sinned" is the true statment.

This goes to show the way we have to understand the context in which things have been said.
Hey there David,

I'm glad you put a link to this post in that other thread since I had forgotten about it. I think it would be great if we could have a nice low-key conversation about logic. We really need to come to a mutual understanding where we see eye to eye since we are talking about the basics of LOGIC which we use in all our conversations.

That said, the only thing you proved above is that Paul's statement is not strictly true as stated. But that's trivial and everyone already knew that. I don't see how it relates to the formulation of your paradox, nor to the law of non-contradiction.

Also, I see a confusion in your statement "The first statement is simply; "All", and the second statement is simply the opposite "NOT All"." That is not correct. The first statement is the entire statement P, not just the first word. The second statement is the negation of the entire statement P, not a new statement formed by negating the first word of P.

In logic, the negation is understood as the negation of the whole statement P, not the formation of new statement with only the first word negated. I suppose this is my fault, I should have been more explicit. Here is a more explanatory formulation of P and Not P:

P = It is true that "All dogs are mammals."
Not P = It is NOT true that "All dogs are mammals."

That's what the law of non-contradiction is really all about. One of those two statements must be true, and one must be false. We usually don't have to write the extra words "It is truth that" since those are normally presumed.

Originally Posted by David M
Now consider what Richard has been saying to me;

P: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.
Not P: There is NOT a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.

Richard is asking me to decide which of these two statements is true (which means one statement has to be false). From when Richard introduced the phrase; "yet angels could sin" I have disagreed with him. My only mistake at the first was to concentrate on the first word of the phrase; "yet", when subsequently I have always objected to the whole phrase which follows the word. I refuse to agree with Richard's line of reasoning and logic by his use of this phrase. Richard accuses me of replying in "Gibberish" and in the context of applying logical expressions and the use of Richard's phrase, I accuse Richard of "twisting words" and introducing man-made ideas.

The only way I can agree with Richard is if we agree the definition of the word "angels". In the context of "angels" being human, I can agree with Richard's statement, but because I know Richard understands "angels" in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 to be "God's Angels", this is why I understand his phrase to mean; "yet God's Angels can sin" and this I do not accept. I am not going to be drawn into agreeing a logical expression in which there is ambiguity. I have replied to Richard even quoting Wikipedia on this very point of problems with logical expressions;

I would like someone who is reading this thread (besides Richard) to add their comment and add anything which will help Richard and me reslove the impasse we have.

David
You said that you could agree with my statement if by "angels" I meant human messengers. Let's try that out:

P: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet human messengers could sin.
Not P: There is NOT a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet humans messengers could sin.

Is P true? Would there be a paradox if human messengers could sin? No.
Is Not P true? Yes.

Great. The law of non-contradiction makes perfect sense in this case.

Now suppose that angels = God's Holy Angels.

P: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet God's Holy Angels could sin.
Not P: There is NOT a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet God's Holy Angels could sin.

Now lets try P: Is there a paradox if God's Holy Angels could sin! YES YES YES!!! That would contradict the idea that God's will is done in heaven! There would be a paradox! That's your entire argument in a nutshell David. Here, let me remind you how you expressed it yourself in your OP of the thread God's will is done in heaven:
What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven. This paradox must be resolved. Explaining Jude 6 or 2 Peter 2:4 to show that the angles referred to are not God’s Angels in Heaven removes the paradox. The same can be done for any passage in the Bible which implies God’s Angels in Heaven can sin.
Now look closely at what you wrote. What is the paradox that you said "must be resolved"? That's very simple. All you are saying is that there would be a paradox IF God's will was done in heaven and yet God's will was NOT done in heaven because God's Angels sinned. The logic of your argument is perfectly clear and straightforward. I see no ambiguity at all.

Therefore, your paradox exists ONLY IF "angels" = "God's Holy Angels in heaven." That's the paradox that you said "must be resolved."

Now that we see that your paradox exists, we have reason to try to find a resolution, since no paradox can be true.

Now look at your solution to this paradox. You said that the only way to resolve this paradox is to assume that the "angels that sinned" were not God's Angels. Again, the logic is perfectly clear. That would resolve the paradox.

This is why your rejection of your own paradox makes no sense. In order for a paradox to be resolved, it must exist. That's why you formed it in the first place. You said there would be a paradox that would have to be resolved if God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin. You used this to prove that the words "angels" could not refer to "God's angels." That is your argument David.

Therefore, I trust you now will agree that my initial formulation of your paradox - which you have been rejecting for eight months - was as perfect and precise as any logical statement could ever be. It is logically identical to your own formulation of your own paradox:
David's own words: We have a paradox when God's will is done in Heaven IF God's Angels sin in Heaven.
Please write something that shows you understand.

All the very best,

Richard

8. Hey there David,

Did you notice the post above?

Richard

9. Senior Member
Join Date
Jan 2012
Posts
2,564
Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Hey there David,

Did you notice the post above?

Richard
I have forgotten, I have less time at the moment and what little time I have had was replying in other threads. I will quickly reply to that post now.

David

10. Senior Member
Join Date
Jan 2012
Posts
2,564
Hello Richard

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Hey there David,

I'm glad you put a link to this post in that other thread since I had forgotten about it. I think it would be great if we could have a nice low-key conversation about logic. We really need to come to a mutual understanding where we see eye to eye since we are talking about the basics of LOGIC which we use in all our conversations.

That said, the only thing you proved above is that Paul's statement is not strictly true as stated. But that's trivial and everyone already knew that. I don't see how it relates to the formulation of your paradox, nor to the law of non-contradiction.

Also, I see a confusion in your statement "The first statement is simply; "All", and the second statement is simply the opposite "NOT All"." That is not correct. The first statement is the entire statement P, not just the first word. The second statement is the negation of the entire statement P, not a new statement formed by negating the first word of P.

In logic, the negation is understood as the negation of the whole statement P, not the formation of new statement with only the first word negated. I suppose this is my fault, I should have been more explicit. Here is a more explanatory formulation of P and Not P:
You were "explicit enough". If anything in my reply before this, I put the " in the wrong place. However, we both know what we mean. I won't confuse things by getting on to boolean logic, but having designed logic circuits I am familiar with the NOT expression. I cannot illustrate it with the text on this page but a NOT expression can be illustrated (if I remember correctly) by writing a live over the phrase in the same way we would underline a phrase.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
P = It is true that "All dogs are mammals."
Not P = It is NOT true that "All dogs are mammals."

That's what the law of non-contradiction is really all about. One of those two statements must be true, and one must be false. We usually don't have to write the extra words "It is truth that" since those are normally presumed.
We are totally in agreement on phrase like this as long as we agree on the definition of the word "dog". "Angels" can apply to humans and God's Angels and so we have an ambiguity of meaning when the word "angels" alone is used.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
You said that you could agree with my statement if by "angels" I meant human messengers. Let's try that out:

P: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet human messengers could sin.
Not P: There is NOT a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet humans messengers could sin.

Is P true? Would there be a paradox if human messengers could sin? No.
Is Not P true? Yes.

Great. The law of non-contradiction makes perfect sense in this case.
Great! Now you are being specific. However. just as you said; "I see not paradox" in the two verses I have quoted, your example above is the same for me; I see no paradox. God's will in Heaven has nothing to do with humans (messengers or not) in Heaven. Humans are always on earth and never in Heaven.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Now suppose that angels = God's Holy Angels.

P: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet God's Holy Angels could sin.
Not P: There is NOT a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet God's Holy Angels could sin.

Once again we are at the stumbling block. You are specific, but I do not agree with the phrase "God's Holy Angels could sin". That is saying they have sinned and can sin. I agree to none of the statements in this example. I do not know how you can fail to see the problem I have with this phrase. It is not my phrase and I have objected to this from the very first time it was used. That said, let me go on to see what you say next.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Now lets try P: Is there a paradox if God's Holy Angels could sin! YES YES YES!!! That would contradict the idea that God's will is done in heaven! There would be a paradox! That's your entire argument in a nutshell David. Here, let me remind you how you expressed it yourself in your OP of the thread God's will is done in heaven:
What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven. This paradox must be resolved. Explaining Jude 6 or 2 Peter 2:4 to show that the angles referred to are not God’s Angels in Heaven removes the paradox. The same can be done for any passage in the Bible which implies God’s Angels in Heaven can sin.
Now look closely at what you wrote. What is the paradox that you said "must be resolved"? That's very simple. All you are saying is that there would be a paradox IF God's will was done in heaven and yet God's will was NOT done in heaven because God's Angels sinned. The logic of your argument is perfectly clear and straightforward. I see no ambiguity at all.
The word you now use, which I did say in a later reply, is the word "If". I only used the word because it indicates "possible uncertainty" (dictionary definition) and in my mind when I used this word, the definition I had in mind is more like the word "impossibility".

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Therefore, your paradox exists ONLY IF "angels" = "God's Holy Angels in heaven." That's the paradox that you said "must be resolved."

Now that we see that your paradox exists, we have reason to try to find a resolution, since no paradox can be true.
Now you are stating the paradox with the word "if" in it and this is not the phrase that I objected to.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Now look at your solution to this paradox. You said that the only way to resolve this paradox is to assume that the "angels that sinned" were not God's Angels. Again, the logic is perfectly clear. That would resolve the paradox.
I am pleased you think that way, so why the disagreement?

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
This is why your rejection of your own paradox makes no sense. In order for a paradox to be resolved, it must exist. That's why you formed it in the first place. You said there would be a paradox that would have to be resolved if God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin. You used this to prove that the words "angels" could not refer to "God's angels." That is your argument David.
Once again, you are using a phrase here I am not agreeing to. Unless you drop that phrase, we are locked against each other. The face value of the word "angels" appear to make a paradox, but as you say, I see no paradox. There is no paradox and there would never have appeared a paradox had the translators used the word "priests".

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Therefore, I trust you now will agree that my initial formulation of your paradox - which you have been rejecting for eight months - was as perfect and precise as any logical statement could ever be. It is logically identical to your own formulation of your own paradox:
David's own words: We have a paradox when God's will is done in Heaven IF God's Angels sin in Heaven.
"If God's Angels can sin" is not the same expression as; "God's Angels could (or can ) sin" and the implied meanings of those two expressions are totally different. I have argued against your formulation of the paradox, which I did not formulate, and yet you said later; "I clearly stated". This is the whole problem all over again. I know how you have tried by your other answers in another thread to try and get around what Jesus said, by claiming God's Angels sinned either before or after (but not at the time) Jesus saying his words or that God's Angels were not in God's presence when they sinned. I argued against all our reasons. I am not allowing your formulation and use to the expression; "yet God's Angels could sin". Unless you drop this phrase and if you cannot find a suitable alternative like the one I said; "if God's Angels could/can sin" then we have a language problem. You can blame me for the problem you are unable to resolve, but unless we can agree terms, then there is no point discussing the matter further.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Please write something that shows you understand.
I have given you once again, my same arguments for disagreeing where I have to. Just when I thought we were getting somewhere, we end up with the same stumbling block. At least you reminded us of it, or else I would have reminded you where and how this argument originated. Unless you drop/amend the phrase; "yet God's Angels could/can sin" to a phrase acceptable to me, we have reached an impasse and it is definitely time to stop any further comment, if we cannot add anything else of significance.

I think this goes to show how we see things differently and yet the same. This is because we are on opposite sides of the fence. I have hopped over to your side of the fence and I understand your reasoning from your point of view; it not reasoning I accept from this side of the fence. I am unsure whether you have hopped over to my side of the fence and see things from my point of view.

All the best,

David
Last edited by David M; 04-23-2013 at 02:04 AM.

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may edit your posts
•